Should you disavow backlinks from sites that have lost traffic?

Why does Mueller clarify about devalued backlinks?

Third-party SEO tools display metrics that constantly change: Domain Authority, Trust Flow, estimated traffic. When a site that linked to you loses 70% of its traffic according to SEMrush, panic sets in. Should you disavow this link that has become “toxic”?

Mueller puts an end to the speculation: no. The fluctuating popularity of a source site does not negatively impact your link profile. Google continuously adjusts the value transferred by each backlink based on hundreds of signals — traffic is just one of many, and not the primary one.

What does “as long as the links are natural” mean in this context?

A natural link is obtained without manipulation: no exchange, no purchase, no network of sites created for artificial link building. If the source site declines because it has stopped publishing content or changed its theme, but the original link was editorial, it remains legitimate.

The problem arises when the source site shifts to spam: redirecting to pharma, injecting massive links, visible manual penalty. In such cases, a disavow may be justified — but it's the spammy behavior that causes the problem, not just the drop in traffic.

Does Google automatically devalue links from declining sites?

Exactly. The algorithm includes automatic discounting mechanisms: if a site loses authority, content freshness, and quality signals, the PageRank it passes decreases naturally. You don’t have to do anything.

What many ignore: the disavow is a last resort tool, designed to signal manipulative links in bulk (following a Penguin penalty, for example). Using it to “clean up” links that have become weak is missing the mark — and risking the removal of positive signals that Google would simply have down-weighted.

• Third-party metrics (DA, DR, CF/TF) do not reflect Google’s internal view — they approximate it.
• A weak natural link does not harm: Google ignores it or diminishes its effect, period.
• The disavow should only be used in cases of massive spam links, visible manual penalties, or confirmed black hat SEO campaigns.
• The drop in traffic from a site can have a hundred causes (seasonality, failed technical migration, partial deindexing) unrelated to the quality of the outgoing link.
• Google adjusts the value of backlinks in real-time — your link profile evolves without manual intervention.

Does this statement align with field observations?

Yes, and it's actually one of the rare points where Google's theory aligns with reality. We regularly observe sites that maintain their positions despite backlinks from domains plummeting in Ahrefs or Majestic. Conversely, massive cleanup efforts through disavow often have no positive impact — sometimes even a negative one.

The issue is that low-cost SEO agencies sell “link profile cleaning” based on arbitrary DA or TF thresholds. The result: disavow files of 300 domains, of which 90% were harmless. Mueller has been repeating this for years, but the SEO industry continues to confuse correlation (low third-party metric) with causation (actual negative impact).

What nuances should be added to this rule?

First edge case: a source site switches to pure spam after you obtained the link. 301 redirecting to pharma, injecting thousands of outgoing links, visible manual penalty in Search Console. In that case, yes, disavow — but again, it is the spam that justifies the action, not the traffic drop.

Second nuance: zombie site networks. If you bought 50 links on PBNs in 2018 and those sites have lost 95% of their traffic, Google has likely identified them as manipulative. But the initial problem is the purchase, not the metric decline — you were already outside the guidelines. [To verify]: Mueller does not specify whether a natural link that has become orphaned (404 page, abandoned site without redirection) retains residual value or is completely ignored. Field tests suggest it is simply ignored, without penalty.

In what cases does this rule not apply?

If you are under a manual penalty for “artificial links to your site,” Google requires a manual cleanup + disavow before reconsideration. In this context, yes, you need to analyze each backlink and disavow those you cannot remove. But this is a crisis scenario, not routine maintenance.

Another exception: documented negative SEO attacks. If your site suddenly receives 10,000 links from spam farms in 48 hours, a preventive disavow may be justified — even if Google claims to manage these cases automatically. Let’s be honest: blind trust in the algorithm is rarely the best strategy when thousands of euros in revenue are at stake.

What should you concretely do with backlinks from declining sites?

Nothing in 95% of cases. If the link was natural when obtained and the source site hasn't switched to spam, let Google handle it. Your SEO time will be better spent creating content that generates new backlinks rather than obsessively auditing the Moz metrics of your 200 referring domains.

The only exception justifying action: you detect a radical qualitative change in the source site (redirecting to an online casino, injecting malware, visible manual penalty). In that case, attempt manual removal of the link, then disavow if unsuccessful.

What mistakes should you avoid in managing your link profile?

Mistake #1: disavowing in bulk because a third-party tool shows domains in red. Ahrefs, SEMrush, and Majestic do not know what Google really thinks of these links — they apply sometimes fanciful heuristics. A DR 15 can very well host a quality editorial link.

Mistake #2: confusing “weak link” with “toxic link.” A weak link provides no benefit but doesn’t harm either. A toxic link (detected purchase, spam network, extremely over-optimized anchor) can trigger an algo filter. The boundary is blurry, but caution dictates to disavow only the obvious.

How can you verify that your disavow approach is sound?

Ask yourself these questions before each disavow: “Does this link come from a manipulation on my part or a third party?” “Does the source site show objective signs of spam (not just a low metric)?” “Have I attempted a manual removal?” If any answer is no, do not disavow.

Check Search Console > Security and Manual Actions. If no penalty is reported, you probably have no truly toxic links — just links of varying quality that Google automatically weighs. Focus your efforts elsewhere.

• Audit your backlinks once a quarter, not every week.
• Only identify obvious spam links: exact match anchors in bulk, penalized domains, detected networks.
• Always attempt manual removal before disavowing (email webmaster, contact form).
• Document every disavow in a spreadsheet: reason, date, removal attempt — you will need to justify in case of manual reconsideration.
• Never disavow an entire domain unless absolutely certain — prefer the specific URL of the problematic link.
• Reevaluate your disavow file annually: some disavowed domains may have come back within guidelines.